You still haven't answered how many university departments (i.e. "colleges") devoted entirely to the advancement of nano technology governments have started.

You ask ridiculously specific questions like "how many satellites have philanthropists put into space to observe weather", and yet to want to side-step this far more general one? What's the problem?

Also, market's don't "cherry pick", markets accurately recognize and efficiently satisfy needs. If there's a need, a market will emerge to satisfy it. What governments do is piss away resources on things that don't benefit anybody (or inefficiently allocate resources in excess of the benefits to be gained). Markets don't spend millions of dollars studying the mating habits of iguanas or making "art" out of toilets. Markets don't waste hundreds of billions incarcerating people for substance abuse, or sending tens of thousands of people to get their legs blown off spreading democracy in a wasteland on the other side of the planet.

A libertarian society would probably do a better job avoiding climate change that our current states (which are not doing a good job at all because of politics and bureaucracy) and would fund the same basic research through a combination of corporate collaboration and philanthropy (concepts Europeans don't really grok, because their tax-theft rate has all but effectively destroyed them in the interest of gobbling up greater and greater percentages of what must be done under the gargantuan, Byzantine, Kafkaesque labyrinth of the state, where its funding can be used for whatever evil the powers-that-be want to use it for). If you think climatology and meteorology are of no interest to corporations, then you're as dumb as a door-knob; they, along with the people, are far more interested in the truth than our politics-run governments are.

and yet, if you take the percentage of children with poor to no healthcare in most of europe and compare to the US, you get that big state eurofags have the edge.

Logic fail. Begging the question. It is the responsibility of parents to provide for their children. That this does not happen in Europe does not equate to Europe having some kind of "edge".

juniper wrote:

Somehow, all that american philanthropy can't seem to give every child basic healthcare. Somehow.

Contrary to what you believe, every child here does have access to basic healthcare, through a combination of government and philanthropic activities.

What reason is that? Besides reality and evidence-contrarian pie in the sky ideology.

There is something very special about the youth of the wealthiest generation the world has ever known typing furiously on a Macbook, "WHAT HAS CAPITALISM EVER DONE FOR ME?!?!"_________________Your argument is invalid.

I don't own a macbook, nor do I care to. And it isn't our generation holding the wealth. And you didn't answer my question.

If you can look at the world and truly not see the positive impact of free markets, then I can't help you. Because as I understand your question, you are asking why anyone would believe that market forces can make health care better and more available. If you can look at the world truly see no reason to believe that, then nothing I can possibly say will persuade you._________________Your argument is invalid.

If you can look at the world and truly not see the positive impact of free markets, then I can't help you. Because as I understand your question, you are asking why anyone would believe that market forces can make health care better and more available. If you can look at the world truly see no reason to believe that, then nothing I can possibly say will persuade you.

What I believe is irrelevant, how the world actually is in objective reality is all that matters. And how the world really works is socialised medicine covers everyone for less money, and market healthcare both tiers care, and entirely excludes a significant percentage of the population, and costs a lot more to boot.

You *want* to believe all you can see only exists because of the free market fairy, and the big bad satan that is gubbermint is everything that's wrong with the world and stopping us from having nice things. But that isn't remotely rational, that's an ideological fable without a shred of evidence to support it. That you don't even bother coming up with as much as an argument is proof positive of this. You're like a young Earth creationist ignoring the evidence and clearly documented experimentation of nuclear physics and denying the radiological dating of the planet. I have no time or interest for dogmatic bare assertions and circle jerking, 'oh you don't believe, so you can't know'. Utter nonsense._________________

juniper wrote:

you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.

What I believe is irrelevant, how the world actually is in objective reality is all that matters. And how the world really works is socialised medicine covers everyone for less money, and market healthcare both tiers care, and entirely excludes a significant percentage of the population, and costs a lot more to boot.

I don't know what you are comparing._________________Your argument is invalid.

You said you were comparing socialized and market health care. What you are really doing, I think, is comparing health care in different countries. Is it the US and the UK, or the US and Canada, or what? Do you know of any advocates for market health care who say the US is what they have in mind? If not, then isn't it really inadequate to use the US as a stand-in for market health care?

What if I asked you to consider the case of Thailand, or Singapore, or India, or some other country with a thriving "medical tourism" industry? These countries treat hundreds of thousands of foreign patients each year, including patients from first-world nations. These are people voting with their dollars. A procedure in Thailand costs one fifth to one third of what the same procedure costs in the US. Sometimes even less. How do you explain that? Does it fit with the narrative you want to tell about market health care? Isn't it conceivable that market forces can drive down the costs of health care?_________________Your argument is invalid.

and now that government walked away from its monopoly on space, how many companies have publicly started working on shuttles?

A market created by government investment in pure science, defence and the pursuit of political goals. We wouldn't have gone to the moon without government-funded science. Without that, where do you think IT technology would be today?

mcgruff wrote:

requiring subscriptions to ridiculously overpriced academic journals, just to access taxpayer funded research, is really tantamount to the free exchange of ideas.

Profiteering, market-driven publishing companies? Thank you for helping to make my point. This model is widely criticised by the scientific community and likely on its way out in favour of open-access journals.

Markets will cherry-pick certain types of research which appear to offer rich rewards and philanthropists will cherry-pick projects which have some kind of emotional impact. That is not enough. Nowhere even close.

the government has 100% of the power to do exactly what you're saying it should do with taxpayer funded research, but it doesn't. didn't you ever stop to think that big government will often use their big government power that you gave them to screw you, and then give you the finger? that's exactly what's happening right now. you're giving them power, and then they say get bent.

You said you were comparing socialized and market health care. What you are really doing, I think, is comparing health care in different countries. Is it the US and the UK, or the US and Canada, or what? Do you know of any advocates for market health care who say the US is what they have in mind? If not, then isn't it really inadequate to use the US as a stand-in for market health care?

What if I asked you to consider the case of Thailand, or Singapore, or India, or some other country with a thriving "medical tourism" industry? These countries treat hundreds of thousands of foreign patients each year, including patients from first-world nations. These are people voting with their dollars. A procedure in Thailand costs one fifth to one third of what the same procedure costs in the US. Sometimes even less. How do you explain that? Does it fit with the narrative you want to tell about market health care? Isn't it conceivable that market forces can drive down the costs of health care?

What is cheap to an American patient is more than fair to a thai doctor, since their average income is less than yours. It's the same as high-end doctors in my country that treat americans, what i would call pricey -from the POV of the average income here- is actually not that bad when you pay in dollars.

So, yeah, sorry to interrupt, i just thought i'd throw that in there.

PS: By the way, don't you find it funny that your 3 examples are countries that have universal health care as well as private health care?

You said you were comparing socialized and market health care. What you are really doing, I think, is comparing health care in different countries. Is it the US and the UK, or the US and Canada, or what? Do you know of any advocates for market health care who say the US is what they have in mind? If not, then isn't it really inadequate to use the US as a stand-in for market health care?

What if I asked you to consider the case of Thailand, or Singapore, or India, or some other country with a thriving "medical tourism" industry? These countries treat hundreds of thousands of foreign patients each year, including patients from first-world nations. These are people voting with their dollars. A procedure in Thailand costs one fifth to one third of what the same procedure costs in the US. Sometimes even less. How do you explain that? Does it fit with the narrative you want to tell about market health care? Isn't it conceivable that market forces can drive down the costs of health care?

Maybe if you want to turn the US into a 3rd world shithole that'd be feasible, and technological acquisitions and care quality go down drastically. Also, thanks to medical tourism, locals can't get care for shit from those private providers. You haven't solved the problem at all, you've made it much worse._________________

juniper wrote:

you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.

You said you were comparing socialized and market health care. What you are really doing, I think, is comparing health care in different countries. Is it the US and the UK, or the US and Canada, or what? Do you know of any advocates for market health care who say the US is what they have in mind? If not, then isn't it really inadequate to use the US as a stand-in for market health care?

What if I asked you to consider the case of Thailand, or Singapore, or India, or some other country with a thriving "medical tourism" industry? These countries treat hundreds of thousands of foreign patients each year, including patients from first-world nations. These are people voting with their dollars. A procedure in Thailand costs one fifth to one third of what the same procedure costs in the US. Sometimes even less. How do you explain that? Does it fit with the narrative you want to tell about market health care? Isn't it conceivable that market forces can drive down the costs of health care?

but what is odd is the following. The US has the most privatized system in the world, yet the prescription you prescribe is get rid of the public parts. I am not being very honest though. you would likely say get rid of the public parts, but also the govt meddling, which I agree is part of the problem. But why is that a problem? The most basic simple solution proposed was a single payer system to capture much of the population. The benefits are easy to see: economies of scale, efficiency from centralization etc etc. That is demonstrably less expensive. if run well, it will drive down costs, something which needs to be done in the face of the upcoming senior demographic bulge.

Percent of children under 18 years of age without health insurance: 7.0%
Percent of children under 18 years of age without a usual source of health care: 4.9%

compare that to britain. There are a few geographical blind spots, but I bet you can get a child seen by a doctor at the drop of dime in under two or three hours anywhere in Britain (I am talking living room couch to doctor). In London, we have taken our child for routine doctors visits and on 3 occasions went for emergency treatment. All three were under an hour. All were clearly not life threatening. All were supplied by the NHS.

Logic fail. Begging the question. It is the responsibility of parents to provide for their children. That this does not happen in Europe does not equate to Europe having some kind of "edge".

to what question am I begging the answer? Sure, I agree with your statement. And European parents do that by having a sane health system.

Are you daft? The question begged is whether it is the responsibility of parents or everybody else to provide health care for children. I didn't make your fucking babies, why should I be paying for them?

juniper wrote:

BK wrote:

juniper wrote:

Somehow, all that american philanthropy can't seem to give every child basic healthcare. Somehow.

Contrary to what you believe, every child here does have access to basic healthcare, through a combination of government and philanthropic activities.

Percent of children under 18 years of age without health insurance: 7.0%
Percent of children under 18 years of age without a usual source of health care: 4.9%

That supports what I said. 95% are getting regular care; it's available to all children free, 5% of the parents just aren't making any effort to get them into the programs.

As to Britain, it's becoming an open sewer of learned helplessness where nobody takes responsibility for anything, including their own children. That's why they're increasingly becoming a bunch of yobs wandering about engaging in delinquent, antisocial behavior and preparing only for a chav life on the dole.

Are you daft? The question begged is whether it is the responsibility of parents or everybody else to provide health care for children. I didn't make your fucking babies, why should I be paying for them?

that wasn't the original question. The original comment to which I was responding was that europeans have so much of their money taken away that they don't have a culture of philanthropy. My response, essentially, was that they have less a need for it.

Right, my babies are my responsibility. But if I can't provide health care for them, should they go without? They didn't do anything wrong.

juniper wrote:

BK wrote:

juniper wrote:

Somehow, all that american philanthropy can't seem to give every child basic healthcare. Somehow.

Contrary to what you believe, every child here does have access to basic healthcare, through a combination of government and philanthropic activities.

Percent of children under 18 years of age without health insurance: 7.0%
Percent of children under 18 years of age without a usual source of health care: 4.9%

That supports what I said. 95% are getting regular care; it's available to all children free, 5% of the parents just aren't making any effort to get them into the programs.

If your cool with 5% not getting regular care, than we just don't have the same priorities.

BK wrote:

As to Britain, it's becoming an open sewer of learned helplessness where nobody takes responsibility for anything, including their own children. That's why they're increasingly becoming a bunch of yobs wandering about engaging in delinquent, antisocial behavior and preparing only for a chav life on the dole.

Have you ever been here? Don't take the dailyfail as gospel. They have a really low murder rate, a much smaller prison population than you do, as well as other pluses. If you have read anything about it, yobbish behaviour is on the decline, along with youth drinking. There certainly are problems with people on the dole, but the NHS isn't one of them. The biggest problem is that social mobility isn't great here (only a few countries are worse, including the US) which is a big part of the dependence/anti social problem.

Are you daft? The question begged is whether it is the responsibility of parents or everybody else to provide health care for children. I didn't make your fucking babies, why should I be paying for them?

that wasn't the original question. The original comment to which I was responding was that europeans have so much of their money taken away that they don't have a culture of philanthropy. My response, essentially, was that they have less a need for it.

Right, my babies are my responsibility. But if I can't provide health care for them, should they go without? They didn't do anything wrong.

It doesn't matter what your "original comment" here was; it's still begging the question and logically incoherent. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not axiomatically a morally superior alternative to parents providing for their own children. We may have 5% of our children going without regular health care, but you've abdicated parental responsibility, are robbing people to pay for other people's children, and are teaching an entire society from birth to be helpless and dependent on others. There's nothing British about that.

juniper wrote:

BK wrote:

As to Britain, it's becoming an open sewer of learned helplessness where nobody takes responsibility for anything, including their own children. That's why they're increasingly becoming a bunch of yobs wandering about engaging in delinquent, antisocial behavior and preparing only for a chav life on the dole.

Have you ever been here? Don't take the dailyfail as gospel. They have a really low murder rate, a much smaller prison population than you do, as well as other pluses. If you have read anything about it, yobbish behaviour is on the decline, along with youth drinking. There certainly are problems with people on the dole, but the NHS isn't one of them. The biggest problem is that social mobility isn't great here (only a few countries are worse, including the US) which is a big part of the dependence/anti social problem.

Yes, I've been there, including the East End. Your country is inundated with yobs and chavs. You have the highest rate of criminal violence in the EU. You have had to resort to accosting people on the street and checking their papers and putting cameras on every street corner. You just had hordes of yobs rampaging through the streets burning things, overturning cars, and looting shops, so don't tell me it's "on the decline".